Both the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges are two of my favorite comedy teams and two of the best of all time. While both groups share similarities, they also feature enough contrasts to not make them direct competitors. The Three StoogesThe Three Stooges began performing in vaudeville acts in the 1920s with comedian Ted Healy. They were then known as “Ted Healy and His Stooges”. In the 1930s, the Three Stooges split from Healy and starred in their own short movies. From 1934-1946, the Three Stooges consisted of brothers Moe and Curly Howard and friend Larry Fine. Curly suffered a stroke in the late 1940s and brother Shemp Howard took his place from 1946-1955 until his death. Joe Besser took Shemp’s place for more short movies from 1956-1958. The last Stooge addition was Curly Joe DeRita from 1958-1970. The Three Stooges reached new popularity once their short movies started showing on TV. This led to renewed interest from older fans and new attention from younger viewers that experienced their comedy for the first time. This new popularity led to them producing several full length feature films from 1959-1965. The Three Stooges continued to perform live until Larry Fine suffered a stroke in the early 1970s. Moe Howard, the last surviving original Stooge, passed in 1975. Curly Joe DeRita was the last surviving replacement Stooge, when he passed in 1993.  The Marx BrothersThe Marx Brothers started as a vaudeville act as well. All of the Marx Brothers were actually brothers. Groucho, Chico, and Harpo Marx are the best known brothers, but Zeppo and Gummo performed with them at first. Gummo never appeared in any of their films. Zeppo was in their first five films, usually as a straight man. Both Zeppo and Gummo became successful organizing the business responsibilities for the family. Eventually, the Marx Brothers transitioned from the vaudeville stage to the Broadway stage. The Marx Brothers first feature length films were adaptations of their Broadway shows. From 1929-1933, the Brothers appeared in five feature films at Paramount with the focus on the Brothers themselves and their distinct characters. Often the gags would take precedence over the narrative. In 1935, the Brothers were signed to MGM studios and appeared in 8 additional films from 1935-1949. The focus of these films were much more on a tighter narrative, musical interludes, and romantic subplots that most often did not involve the Brothers. After the popularity of their movies started to wane, Groucho, Harpo, and Chico transitioned to television appearances, with Groucho finding the most success hosting shows like “You Bet Your Life”. Chico passed in 1961 and Harpo in 1964. Groucho and Gummo passed in 1977. Zeppo was the last surviving Marx Brother when he passed in 1979. Actress Margaret Dumont was often considered an unofficial Marx Brother. She appeared as the straight woman in 7 of their movies from 1929-1939, most often opposite Groucho. She played the dignified wealthy widow that would look down upon Groucho’s antics.  Similarities and DifferencesBoth the Three Stooges and Marx Brothers were Jewish families that grew up in New York City. Both used the medium of motion pictures to reach their widest audience. Both used a combination of verbal and physical humor. Both groups also used the idea of a team with contrasting characters to their advantage. The Three Stooges were always involved in situations together. Moe is almost always the de facto leader of the group. However it is important to note that although he confidently tries to explain things to the other Stooges, he is often just as lost as they are. Larry is often the quietest in the group, preferring to hang back with a puzzled look on his face. He is also the most physically distinctive of the group with his hair looking like a clown’s. Curly was often the most vulnerable, or easily mislead member of the group. He always featured the physical trait of a single button done on his jacket, giving the impression that the jacket was about to pop open. Shemp’s physical characteristic was his hair combed back that would constantly fall in front of his face. No disrespect, but I always found Joe Besser to be kind of whiny. I do not remember many of his movies. Curly Joe DeRita was mostly an imitation of Curly, which I think was the intention all along. As for the Marx Brothers, Zeppo Marx often played the straight man which contrasted with his brothers. Groucho Marx often played the lead in their movies. His distinctive walk, painted on mustache, glasses, and cigar have become popular with glasses imitating him still available at costume stores. His greatest strength was the speed of his verbal banter. He would acknowledge his brothers but was often featured in scenes apart from them. Chico and Harpo had many scenes together both sharing their musical as well as their comedic talents. Chico followed the recent immigrant stereotype. He believed himself to have good business sense but the language barrier would often get him mixed up. Harpo was the always silent brother, relying on his physical comedy. Like Larry from the Three Stooges, Harpo’s curly blond wig makes him look the most like a clown. Both groups seem to use class identity to better identify with their audiences. In many situations the Three Stooges and Marx Brothers portray lower to middle class characters contrasted in an upper class world. Whereas the Three Stooges seem to have a goal of assimilating and wanting to fit in and always failing, the Marx Brothers seem to celebrate that they are at the limits of society. Today, the Marx Brothers seem to get more recognition from critics and scholars than the Three Stooges. Feature films have always been recognized over short films, especially in the genre of comedy. However, more viewers today seem to know the Three Stooges. I believe this may be how friendly the short movie format is to television. As I said before, I love the work of both groups and I think their styles complement each other well. No one has to choose between them. Why not enjoy both?
0 Comments
 Vaudeville and the British Music Hall The style of performance known as Vaudeville began to appear just a few years before the invention of the motion picture. The term “vaudeville” comes from the song parodies of Eighteenth Century France. Vaudeville focused not on a narrative or order of events, but rather on the performer herself. There was no director of the performances, aside from the owner of the venue that would choose the order of acts and determine which performer received the best audience response. This absence of a director left the performer as the controller of timing, audience rapport, and content. Later in the Twentieth Century, the Vaudeville tradition continued in the form of stand-up comedy. Vaudeville, and the British equivalent of the Music Hall, had more influence on the style of comedy film than on any other genre. The episodic style of Vaudeville introduced a performance rhythm that became expected in film comedy and ultimately led to television variety shows. With its widespread influence, the style of Vaudeville and Music Hall affected many later filmmakers and theorists, including the great Russian filmmaker, Sergei Eisenstein, who wrote more about the art of montage than any other filmmaker or film scholar. He credits the inspiration of creating meaning through the juxtaposition of separate elements to Vaudeville and the Music Hall. The rapid-fire delivery of antecedent-consequence, set up-punch line style of comedy that audiences come to expect with film comedy has its roots in Vaudeville. Another innovation that came from within the context of Vaudeville is the duality of the comedienne as a character and the comedienne as herself. By the 1930s, it was not uncommon to find examples of comedians, like the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, or (for that matter) Cary Grant, who appeared in films impersonating themselves instead of a fictional character. Of course, studios at the time could not help but encourage this trend. If a comedienne, or more importantly, if her style, were popular with audiences, succeeding pictures featuring this comedienne were more likely to be successful, as audiences members knew what to expect from the comedienne’s performance. Vaudeville also presented the mindset that a successful comic performance should be judged not on the creativity of the performer or the variety of his or her performances, but on the number of laughs that the performer elicits.  The Motion Picture Since the birth of the motion picture in the late 1800s, film comedy not only developed due to the influence of other art forms, but also within the film medium as the techniques and styles of filmmaking became conventions of expression. It is important here to note that the film genres that we know today did not appear fully formed, but rather developed gradually over a period of a couple decades. The major genres of the infant years of film were melodrama, comedy, and historical epic. Comedy was successful critically, as well as financially. In the 1920s, film reviewers and audiences saw the comic Chaplin as at an equal level as that of the dashing Fairbanks. There was no difference between the comic performer and the dramatic performer. Some of the most influential comic characters and situations that are familiar today come from the silent film comedies. Silent film comedy had true universal appeal, as knowledge of the language was unnecessary. As was the case with Vaudeville, the character and her routine of gags is more important to the silent film comedy than the narrative. However, film comedy would not remain the prominent genre that it had been in the 1920s. While audiences seem to be forgiving of dramatic films that reuse plot elements and character identities from film to film, audiences immediately notice when the same gag or comic situation is reused. As I stated before, similar gags not only kept their impact over a period of a couple decades, but rather for centuries. Consider the influence of Vaudeville’s episodic structure on film comedy, and how the medium of film allowed for the filmmaker to insert gags at any moment of the film. A gag recycled from earlier films may even recur in the same film, if the context allows. Film comedy changed style more drastically than any other genre out of necessity, meaning that verbal comedy became the main form of comic expression. Comic style also became more diverse as the homogenous style of slapstick comedy branched out into “comedian comedies” and Screwball comedies. But verbal comedy did not eliminate all forms of physical comedy, as some of the most successful comedians developed trademarks with their physical mannerisms. Indeed, physical comic styles did not die completely in favor of purely verbal comedy. Rather, they remained ever present, synthesizing a greater comic impact than verbal comedy could alone. In the 1930s, comedy did not simply coexist with drama, it complemented it. Sometimes only comedy is daring enough to show society as it really is. The next major technical innovation after the sound film was television, which became the primary showcase for comedy in the 1950s. As a result of this transition, among other causes, few notable film comedies came from American studios in the 1950s when compared to other decades. The most successful American comic director of the 1950s would have to be Billy Wilder. His definitive comedies The Seven Year Itch (1955) and Some Like It Hot (1959), described by some film scholars as “sex comedies”, form practically a subgenre of their own. Also, I would argue that none other than Marilyn Monroe was the most successful American comic film performer of the 1950s. Nearly every comedy film in which she starred was a commercial and critical success, in part because she worked with some of the most critically acclaimed directors of the time. Keep in mind that, although she has now been dead for fifty years, she remains one of the most popular cultural icons. Licensing fees for the use of her likeness alone still earn millions for her estate every year. Her legacy is indisputable as is her influence on American popular culture and on comedy. While the American film industry suffered during the Red Scare of the 1950s, British film comedy found a sort of renaissance. Ironically, the successful British comedies of the mid Twentieth Century had their roots in documentary—a genre that relies on a strict narrative structure, unlike comedy. It seems as if the filmmakers of the United Kingdom had to wait for the output of American comedies to stall in order for international audiences to appreciate their distinguishing brand of comedy. The two most influential British comic performers of the mid Century were Alec Guinness, who was equally as comfortable in the historical epics of David Lean as he was playing multiple roles in Ealing Comedies, and Peter Sellers. These two performers introduced the world of comedy to the unprecedented feat of one actor portraying multiple roles within one film—and sometimes within one scene, as Guinness does in Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949). Although I admit that many so-called “character actors” populate dramas, if one performer were to play multiple roles in a single dramatic film, it would give the impression of a low budget production that could not hire enough talent. But in the realm of film comedy, the ability of one actor to portray multiple convincing characters in a single film is a demonstration of that performer’s prowess. Note how this quality of performance unique to comedy in the field of motion pictures comes from the theatre, in which a one-performer show—whether comic or dramatic—seems to denote an accomplished performer. By the early 1960s, British and American filmmakers seemed to return to a uniform style of comedy. For 1960s and 1970s comedy, parody was the order of the day. In the United States, Mel Brooks imitated classic Westerns in Blazing Saddles (1974) and classic Horror with Young Frankenstein (1974). Woody Allen used an actual Japanese film that he redubbed in order to lampoon poorly dubbed foreign films in What’s Up, Tiger Lily? (1966) and he parodied documentaries with Take The Money and Run (1969) and Zelig (1983). The team of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, and Jerry Zucker satirized the disaster movies that had become popular in the 1970s, including notable entries like Airport (George Seaton 1970), The Poseidon Adventure (Ronald Neame 1972), Earthquake (Mark Robson 1974), and The Towering Inferno (John Guillermin and Irwin Allen 1974), with their critically acclaimed Airplane! (1980). Although some scholars may argue that Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964) parodies Sidney Lumet’s Fail-Safe (1964), I disagree with this assessment. Kubrick released Dr. Strangelove in January 1964, while Lumet released his film in October 1964—nearly a year later. It is quite possible that Kubrick had read the novel Fail-Safe (published 1962) and was aware that a film version of the novel was in the works. However, if Kubrick had wanted his film to function as a parody of Fail-Safe, he would have waited for Lumet to release the aforementioned film. In addition, the credits of Dr. Strangelove clearly attribute the story to Peter George’s novel Red Alert (published 1958). For these reasons, I believe that Dr. Strangelove is not part of the parody tradition. Instead, it most closely follows the methods of the Anarchic Comedies. Concurrently, versatile filmmaker Blake Edwards parodied the James Bond franchise with a series of films beginning with The Pink Panther (1963). The success of this series owes much to the performances of Peter Sellers and to the music of Henry Mancini. In the 1970s, the Monty Python comedy troupe lampooned historical epics in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) and Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979). One curious point that I wish to make about parody is that so often the resulting parody is of a higher caliber of technique and aesthetics than the original film that it parodies. Filmmakers begin work on a parody with the assumption that the viewer will be familiar with the original source, but a well-made parody can succeed on its own without requiring the viewer to have any existing knowledge of the source. Most viewers will arrive at a parody knowing the rules for the particular genre or genres that the comedy film parodies. The most successful parodies work because they purposefully go against the rules of the parodied genre. The 1970s ended with a return to romantic comedy as the primary subgenre of comedy with films such as Allen’s Annie Hall (1977) and Manhattan (1979) and Edwards’ 10 (1979) finding popular and critical success. Arguably, this trend continues into later comedies, like Moonstruck (Norman Jewison 1987), Four Weddings and a Funeral (Mike Newell 1994), Bridget Jones’s Diary (Sharon Maguire 2001) and more recently, The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius 2011).  6/20/2021 0 Comments Film- All About Camera Angles Often what are described as camera angles have nothing to do with angles at odd degrees. Most of the time, the camera setup is based on distance from the subject, choice of lens, and camera height. With combinations of these three ideas, a filmmaker can create dozens of creative shots that not only affect the viewer subconsciously but also can help to further the plot and character development. I will describe each of these ideas. Distance The first idea to consider when placing a camera is distance from the subject. Obviously the options are greater in an open outdoor space than an enclosed indoor space. For the basics, moving the camera closer to the subject makes the subject larger in the frame. Moving the camera away from the subject makes the subject appear smaller in the frame. A word of caution here about using a zoom lens or feature instead of moving the camera. Many consumer level cameras offer a wide zoom range, sometimes listed as 300x or more. However, it is important to understand the difference between optical zoom (meaning an effect of the zoom lens) and digital zoom (meaning that the camera is simply blowing up the original image). While optical zoom is a practical effect, digital zoom is no different than zooming in on a picture on the computer. The quality of the image gets worse the closer you try to zoom in. Because of this, I recommend moving the camera closer to the subject than relying on a zoom feature. Lenses Here is where the options can get really interesting. Lenses affect the depth of the image also called depth of field. When we say depth for photography, it is basically the apparent distance between the subject and the background. There are many types of lenses, but the basic ones are wide, normal, and telephoto (a zoom lens is one that can transition between these).  Wide These types of lenses allow the largest canvases. They also make the background appear as far removed from the subject. For traditional extremely wide shots, the entire landscape is in focus. Wide shots are often used to establish a new location. They can also be used for great effect to show contrasts. A tiny house in a huge field can be very effective. Two people standing on opposite sides of the image can be symbolic of the emotional distance between them.  Normal This can be thought of as medium--not too wide; not too close. The background appears medium distance from the subject, depending on the distance from the subject, the background may be more in focus or more blurry. Two subjects can appear together in this type of shot and still be in focus.  Telephoto These lenses are the closest and are meant to focus on the subject, often blurring out the background. They are often only used for two subjects close together or just one subject. The focus can change during a shot to move between subject and background. Combinations of Distance and Lens When you combine distance with different types of lenses, you get some creative effects. With a wide angle lens, you can still move the camera very close to the subject and the background will appear very far while the subject takes up most of the frame. In contrast, with a telephoto lens, you can move the camera far from the subject and still have the subject large in the frame. As one can see, combining distance and lens type can allow the filmmaker to focus on certain parts of the frame or bring out details sharper. The eye is automatically drawn to the parts of the image that are sharper. In this way, the filmmaker forces the viewer to focus on the desired parts of the image.  Height Height is another element of camera placement. The average shot is at eye level, but by altering the height of the camera, the filmmaker can show character perspectives and power relationships.
When a character walks down a street, if the view is from a window, it may indicate the character is being watched. When one character is filmed from below while another is filmed from above it could show the power and influence one character has over another. Height can be combined with distance and lenses to add another layer of information to a shot, but height is often best used subtly so that it affects the viewer subconsciously. Used too much or too obviously and the height of the camera can become comical, unless that is the intention. As you can see, combining distance from the subject, various senses, and camera height, there are dozens of different types of shots available to the filmmaker. The best shots are the ones the contribute to the story and enhance the characters. Let me know if you have questions!  Literature Many would find it odd to see Jane Austen (1775-1817) listed amongst the great creators of comedy, but here I present her as not only the first notable female writer of comedy, but also as someone who today scholars still discuss as one of the most frank and observant social critics. One would not seem to read Austen’s Pride and Prejudice or Sense and Sensibility in order to enjoy an elaborate farce, but by looking to the Medieval definition of comedy that describes comedy as a story with a happy ending, as in Dante, one can see that Austen’s novels end with the joyful union of lovers. Austen has the keen ability of capturing the humorous side of characters, as one would encounter it in everyday life. Austen acknowledged the necessity of comedy for a person’s feeling of well-being. Music In the time since Mozart, composers such as Gioachino Rossini (1792-1868; The Barber of Seville) and Gaetano Donizetti (1797-1848; Don Pasquale) succeeded him in the crafting of comic gems. Today, audiences everywhere are familiar with the music of Rossini, though they may not know it, for Bugs Bunny and the Looney Tunes appropriated much of it. As one can see through the Looney Tunes’ use of his music, Rossini’s operas present such a complete view of comedy. Not only are the libretti and situations humorous, the very quality of the music, with its twists and surprises, is comical. The prolific Gaetano Donizetti succeeded Rossini in the genre of Opera Buffa, crafting several successful examples of the form. One can see many of the gags known to slapstick films and the situations of the Screwball Comedies as being mainstays of Rossini and Donizetti’s operas.  The Victorian Era Few time periods in the history of the Western World have seemed to follow so many implied social rules than the Victorian Era. It was precisely for this reason that the Victorian Era needed comedy—something that can exist outside of social boundaries. While one would seem off base labeling Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities, and A Christmas Carol as comedies, one needs to note how Charles Dickens (1812-1870) does craft many rich comic characters and situations. Numerous critics and scholars praise Dickens for his humor. Early filmmakers, including D.W. Griffith and Sergei Eisenstein, who also theorized about effective filmmaking, often cited Dickens as a source of inspiration for the multifaceted structuring of narrative. Dickens demonstrated how the reader could experience concurrent action in a novel, a structure also possible in film, unlike live theatre. Comic filmmakers soon adopted the narrative techniques of Dickens as Griffith and Eisenstein had utilized them. In Dickens, we see comedy as a relief from the pains of life. Like Chaplin, Dickens grew up in poverty and felt a connection to the common people, pursuing comedy as a relief in the Medieval comedy, which also appears in Sullivan’s Travels (1942). Chaplin, Dickens, and (to a point) Sturges, were all populists who could approach social injustices through the lens of comedy. Like Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Mozart before him, Dickens created many rich comic characters. If laughter truly is a group activity, perhaps laughter allows the reader to affirm the comic character. Few authors would shape the philosophy of depression era filmmakers such as Chaplin and Sturges—working with urban settings—more so than Charles Dickens. Romantic Period When we move into the Romantic period of art, literature, theatre, and music, we find that, “Romantic dramatists preferred tragedy to comedy” (Ousby), which makes sense in an era of industrial change, war, social upheaval, scientific and medical discoveries, and changing national identities. If the reader considers that one of the elements of Romanticism, personal feelings and individuality, it is not surprising that comedy—which is an expressive form that is meant to be shared—should not catch the attention of Romantic critics. In music, it is interesting that of all of Bedrich Smetana’s opera works, it is the comedy for which he is remembered best. Comedy makes people feel good, and one can always remember the feeling that a comedy inspired. French composer Jacques Offenbach (1819-1880) held the world stage with a variety of comic operas. Offenbach was able to take the satire of Swift and mold it into a musical form. It is ironic that Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901), who began his career with a comedy—decided to end his career with a comedy as well. It is still performed today to enormous popularity.  Transitional Years Much like the case with Verdi, Giacomo Puccini (1858-1924) is known for his tragic operas. However, his Gianni Schicchi, based on a character from Dante, is a highly praised comic opera. Like Puccini’s skill in comedy as well as tragedy, some of the most notable comic filmmakers like Billy Wilder, W.S. Van Dyke, and George Cukor, could also succeed in non-comic genres. One only has to think of Double Indemnity (Wilder 1944), Tarzan the Ape Man (Van Dyke 1932), and Gaslight (Cukor 1944), to see this versatility in action.
The comic opera tradition continued with the works of three separate composers. In Vienna, Johann Strauss (1825-1899), “the Waltz King”, composed Die Fledermaus, with annual New Years performances still selling out fifteen years in advance, As we see with several film comedies like Chaplin’s City Lights (1931) or Wilder’s Some Like It Hot (1959), a comedy may be successful commercially and critically at its release and continue to be so. Often, as with Verdi’s Falstaff or Strauss’ Fledermaus, the appeal is partly due to the comic creators and performers’ existing reputations. In the United Kingdom, librettist William Gilbert (1836-1911) and composer Arthur Sullivan (1842-1900) collaborated on several comic operettas including The Pirates of Penzance, H.M.S. Pinafore, and The Mikado. In a similar way, American composer Victor Herbert created such comic operettas as Eileen, Naughty Marietta, and The Red Mill. In the realm of literature, Mark Twain (born Samuel Clemens; 1835-1910) is still one of the world’s most influential writers. Twain’s comic style relates to the social critique of Dickens and Chaplin, as well as to the satire of Swift. In a later work, The Mysterious Stranger: A Romance, Twain proclaimed the power of comedy. It is a terribly important fact for American film comedy that one of America’s greatest writers specialized in comedy, particularly the ability to observe the people and situations of everyday life. Part of the next generation after Mark Twain, composer/conductor John Philip Sousa (1854-1932) became quite a prolific writer of comic operettas, though today, the general public and most music historians remember Sousa as the “March King”. Sousa’s dream, in fact, had always been to be a musical theater composer, not a band conductor. Despite this, many music reference texts do not even mention Sousa’s operettas in his biographies. Sousa’s work on Our Flirtations and other arrangements made him well known in the music world. Sousa wrote nine comic operettas, however, Sousa’s operettas fell out of favor with audiences and critics just as silent film comedy was reaching the forefront of American popular entertainment and art. Many historians attribute the failure of his final show to the fact that it was the product of an era that had already passed in America, Sousa’s operettas and those like them still exerted an influence on the later anarchic sound comedies of W.C. Fields, Laurel and Hardy, The Marx Brothers, Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, and Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis—especially in the musical interludes of the latter three comedy teams. One should note how easily aspects of comic musical theater were absorbed into the comedy of the sound film.  (Europe: ~1600-1750 AD) One of the major showcases for comedy in the last few centuries has been in the form of musical presentations. The musical form that we now know as Opera began as a reaction against the musical style of the late Renaissance period. Unlike the musical works performed in the courts of monarchs and wealthy families, Opera was a public presentation made of content that reflected the tastes of the expanding audiences. The early Opera Seria, or “Serious Opera”, told stories of deities, demigods, and epic heroes. These Opera Seria included three Acts and a prescribed number of arias per singer. At first, the Opera Seria had no comic counterpart. But after some time, audiences became bored with the strict structure of the Opera Seria and the esoteric nature of the characters and narratives within them. As a response to this dissatisfaction, composers began to write short comic intermezzi to present in between the acts of the Opera Seria. Unlike the Opera Seria, the comic intermezzi featured characters to whom the common people could relate. Once again, as with Terence, we see one of the major aspects in the development of film comedy: the influence that audience taste exerts on what comic writers create. The plot of the early intermezzi usually came in a two-act structure (one act between each act of the Opera Seria) and often involved humorous, realistic situations, such as an older man trying frantically to woo a younger woman. The unexpected happened when these comic intermezzi became more popular than the Opera Seria for which the composers had created them to accompany. These comic intermezzi evolved into the standalone Opera Buffa, or “comic opera”. One could argue that the leading expression of comedy at this time, and the one that reached the widest audience was in the form of Opera Buffa.  Opera Comique |
